*3.3. Functional Relationship—Layer of the Landscape: Determination of Functional Potential of a-CEFs*

On the basis of the analyses carried out, it can be concluded that individual SA-CEFs (respectively A-CEFs) as anthropogenic elements in the post-military landscape may represent semi-natural elements from a certain point of view. The SA-CEF (or A-CEFs) object itself may be perceived in the landscape at first sight as a 'rock', with a corresponding growth of mosses or vegetation (example shown in Figures 5 and A4B). In contrast, from the point of view of the interior environment, the A-CEFs can be seen as a 'cave', which

can provide shelter for various species of organisms. This 'cave-like' environment of the A-CEFs' interior is not only characterized by a constant temperature throughout the year, but also by calcite deposits and soda straws (as they are called) on the walls and ceilings of the building as 'stalactites'. In terms of geomorphological shapes, the A-CEFs can be perceived as a concave shape that forms an unmistakable step in the terrain. From the point of view of the pedological characteristics, we can consider the object itself as an anthroposol (ceiling, embankment made out of boulders and covered with a layer of earth and grass). In Figure 5 we can observe different perspectives of view as we see the different functions of A-CEFs in the landscape.

**Figure 5.** Different points of view of individual functions of A-CEFs.

*3.4. Natural Conditions—Layer of the Landscape: Zoological Survey of the Interior Environment of the SA-CEFs*

Representatives of the following taxa were found in the interiors of 39 SA-CEFs: Oligochaeta, Gastropoda (Pulmonata), Arachnida (Opiliones, Araneae, Acari, Pseudoscorpiones), Malacostraca (Isopoda), Myriapoda (Chilopoda, Diplopoda), Hexapoda (Collembola, Diplura, Orthoptera, Dermaptera, Hemiptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera). The presentation of these results would exceed the scope of this paper. A total of 104 species were identified. Among the taxa mentioned above, Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), whose adults seek out similar spaces for overwintering or hibernating, and Gastropoda (land snails), which can survive in similar spaces for a long time, or are so-called accidental guests, were chosen as model groups. These two taxa have the advantage of relatively easy and unambiguous determination in the field, with the consequent possibility of determining presence/absence in the SA-CEF and estimating absolute abundance.

A total of 9 species from the model group Lepidoptera were recorded in the interior of the SA-CEFs and a total of 732 live individuals were identified (Figure A5A, Table A6). From the model group Gastropoda, 20 species were recorded and a total of 180 live individuals were identified (Table A7). The species *Inachis io* represents the butterfly with the highest frequency (91.89%) and the highest dominance (42.76%). The land snail with the highest frequency was *Monachoides incarnatus* (63.64%) and the land snail with the highest dominance was *Helix pomatia* (24.44%) (Figure A5B).

The multicriteria analysis (MDS), which was calculated separately for butterflies and moths, and land snails, does not allow us to interpret the main directions of variability in the species data. Figure 6 shows an ordination diagram (MDS) depicting the distribution of individual SA-CEFs depending on the presence of organic material (land snails) and Figure 7 shows an ordination diagram (MDS) depicting the distribution of individual SA-CEFs depending on the nature of the surrounding environment (butterflies and moths).

**Figure 6.** Ordination diagram (MDS) showing the distribution of individual SA-CEFs depending on the presence of organic material (land snails, for all SA-CEFs, without data adjustment).

**Figure 7.** Ordination diagram (MDS) showing the distribution of individual SA-CEFs as a function of the nature of the surrounding environment (butterflies and moths, for all SA-CEFs, without data adjustment).

#### **4. Discussion**

From the partial results that correspond to the individual approaches (in Material and Methods), conclusions can be drawn that will have an impact on further progress in the study of A-CEFs as phenomenon elements of the Czech borderlands landscape.

### *4.1. Genius Loci—Layer of the Landscape: Searching for Stories of the SA-CEFs*

The guided interview as a research method was not focused on the general public at this stage, but mainly at people who were expected to have some knowledge of the subject people who deal with this in their profession (museum workers) as well as hobbyists who are involved in this field in their free time. For the guided interview, which is time-consuming, the number of respondents (27) was not very high, but for our research it is sufficient.

In terms of such a targeted guided interview focused on finding out the stories, neither the ratio of professions nor the age of the respondents is decisive in the results. It is clear from the results that the stories associated with the atmosphere of a place are absorbing regardless of age or profession (but again in a sample of people who have an established relationship with the objects). Both the verbal and written responses from respondents showed their passion for A-CEFs (respectively SA-CEFs) and their enthusiasm for our interest. This is essentially consistent with the function A-CEFs fulfill in the genius loci as a layer of landscape: A-CEFs evoke a deep emotional response in humans. In this context, it is worth quoting part of the statement of one respondent: 'The fortification has absolutely incredible genius loci if you are lucky enough to be hit by it. There are people who are not interested in fortifications, or who are uncomfortable with fortifications for some reason. Then there are the people who are interested in it, who like to read or listen to it. Many visitors leave the sites surprised at all the new things they have learned. And then there are people who, once they've been introduced to bunkers, have never been able to get turned away from them. That's something that can't be described as anything other than their diagnosis.'

These conclusions suggest the usefulness of the method (and results) of the guided interview, but at the same time open the perspective for the creation of a structured questionnaire. A structured questionnaire would be aimed at a broader public and would also take into account the attitudes of people who may not have a positive attitude towards A-CEFs, including the subsequent statistical evaluation of the data. From the results of the questionnaire survey and in the context of the above, it is necessary to appropriately define the conceptual apparatus related to the use of the term 'story', which can be perceived differently within the genius loci as the layer of the landscape (subjective experience of the visitors, etc.) and the cultural heritage (historically documented event, etc.). As already noted in the results, also fabricated stories play an important role in the search for the function of A-CEFs. Given these facts, it is necessary to recognize between different types of stories: historically based stories (historically recorded, more likely to be the accounts of direct participants), historically unfounded stories (not historical fact, but the use of this fact to locate characters, time and space), and fabricated stories (Table 2).

**Table 2.** The role that different story types play in genius loci and socio-economic sphere as landscape layers.


Although many A-CEFs appear at first sight to be abandoned (A-CEFs as brownfields), they play a role in something that is harder to grasp, and what we might call the 'hidden curriculum of the landscape'. From this perspective, they are not 'really abandoned' but

only as abandoned perform social and educational functions. At the same time, fabulations (apparently fictional stories) play an important role, which is considered worthless, confusing, or even undesirable from the point of view of the cultural heritage. The fact that the casual visitors make up their own stories when interacting with A-CEFs is remarkable when looking at A-CEFs as brownfields, even though a negative phenomenon such as the Goliath effect may be associated with it (Figure A4) [50]. At this point, it is also worth highlighting that, apparently due to the occurrence of SA-CEFs in the open landscape (outside human settlements), we have not observed negative uses (e.g., squatter settlements). But this statement cannot be applied to all A-CEFs, as their very small size makes intensive use rather unlikely.

The SA-CEF units in the landscape were perceived positively by the respondents as a kind of historical milestone reminding them of an important historical stage and may also be part of 'family heritage'. Recording of negative perceptions of the objects is rather to be expected only from the results of a structured questionnaire directed to the general public. This would simultaneously capture the wider variation in the public's perception of post-military landscapes, and hence A-CEFs, for the purposes of our research, and thus also provide a valuable stimulus to a comprehensive view of the issue of A-CEFs as brownfields.

#### *4.2. Socio-Economic Sphere—Layer of the Landscape: SA-CEFs as Brownfields*

Data analysis has shown that a total of 591 units of A-CEFs and UA-CEFs are still existing in Moravian-Silesian Region (out of a total of 896 originally planned or realized). In 40 cases of A-CEFs and UA-CEFs, it is possible to trace their remains in the landscape. A total of 182 have been permanently obliterated for various reasons. It is interesting to note that a very significant number of all of them have survived and it is questionable whether this is related to difficulties in their obliteration. In certain circumstances, it may be related to their strategic importance within the Czech army for a certain period, or also to the subsequent efforts of leading figures in society (political representation) to preserve these objects as an integral part of the landscape that the Czechoslovak fortification line forms from a historical point of view. Although the study focused only on a limited set of SA-CEFs (*n* = 39), relative to the total number, it is still possible to draw some conclusions of a more general nature.

The ownership of individual A-CEFs or UA-CEFs is complicated in the former Czech Republic due to the complex evolution of property rights. In the set of SA-CEFs, we were interested in the relationship between the type of ownership and the rate of human use. Privately owned buildings were expected to have a higher rate of use, e.g., for recreational purposes or as storage facilities, or to be eventually made inaccessible to the public. The vast majority of privately owned SA-CEFs are not used—Figure 8A.

**Figure 8.** (**A**)—Relation between 'Ownership of SA-CEFs' and 'Rate of human use of indoor environment in SA-CEFs'. (**B**)—Relation between 'Type of surrounding exterior environment of SA-CEFs' and 'Entrance accessibility in SA-CEFs'. (**C**)—Relation between 'Type of surrounding exterior environment of SA-CEFs' and 'Rate of human use of indoor environment in SA-CEFs'. (**D**)—Relation between 'Rate of human use of indoor environment in SA-CEFs' and 'Entrance accessibility in SA-CEFs'.

When comparing the type of exterior environment and accessibility of entrance to SA-CEFs (Figure 8B), open landscape SA-CEFs are also generally more accessible. A crosscomparison of the level of human use and type of exterior environment in the SA-CEFs shows (Figure 8C) that open landscape SA-CEFs are the most visited by people. In both cases, this may be related to the possible cultivation of land in the immediate neighborhood of SA-CEFs (one reason for the earlier obliteration of SA-CEFs) versus forest management. The fact that SA-CEFs in open spaces are also more easily found by potential visitors may also be a factor to some extent. Also, when human use rates and accessibility of SA-CEFs are compared to each other (Figure 8D), it appears that logically those SA-CEFs that are also open access are used with the greatest intensity. This comparison also shows that accessibility of the entrance is not a decisive factor for the rate of human use in the sample of SA-CEFs.
